- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:52:50 +0200
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
[...] > > Option 2: The sameXxxAs properties are not subproperties of equivalentTo. > > > > In this option the standard way of saying that two classes have the same > > extension does not imply that they denote the same object. Here > > sameClassAs is exactly the same as having two subClassOf relationships. > > > > This option does not depend on any particular answer to the classes as > > instances issue. > > > > > > > > I vote for option 2. > > That's my preference for how sameClassAs works too. OK, that was not my DAML understanding so far but I'm now convinced that option 2 is better just that http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/mapVocabP.n3 is then not entailing anymore http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/mapVocabC.n3 unless it would say :all ont:equivalentTo ont:intersectionOf. (at least, that's what we have tested) > A couple test cases: first, an obvious one: > > > :Car owl:sameClassAs :Automobile. > :car1 rdf:type :Car. > ==> > :car1 rdf:type :Automobile. OK > now, one that shows the distinction: > > :Car owl:sameClassAs :Automobile. > :Car :averagePrice "20000". > =?=> > :Automobile :averagePrice "20000". > > Like Peter, prefer that this entailment does *not* old. > Why? Because this is the minimally constraining design. OK, that one does not hold > And a third test, to give an example of the sorts > of thing I do that we'd lose if we struck equivalentTo > (and/or decided against classes as instances): > > :Car owl:equivalentTo :Automobile. > :car1 rdf:type :Car. > :Car :averagePrice "20000". > :Automobile :averageWeight "2000". > =?=> > :car1 rdf:type _:someClass. > _:someClass :averagePrice "20000". > _:someClass :averageWeight "2000". > > I'm still thinking about whether I really, really need this in > owl or not. I would keep that entailment (just can't see why that one would not hold) > If owl didn't provide it, I could probably make my own > that's a subproperty of all three sameXXXAs. > Sounds like Jeff H. and I would want to agree on > how to spell it so our stuff could interoperate. > Gee... sounds like it might be worth standardizing... > 1/2 ;-) -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 17:53:29 UTC